Judicial application of Daubert to psychological syndrome and profile evidence: A research note

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 62-82

  Dahir, Veronica B ^a   Richardson, James T ^a   Ginsburg, Gerald P ^a   Gatowski, Sophia I ^b   Dobbin, Shirley A ^b   Merlino, Mara L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b Natl Council of Juvenile and Family   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 13844255534     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.62     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. The American bench: Judges of the nation (9th ed.). (1997-1998). Sacramento, CA: ForsterLong.
2. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
3. Berger, M. (2001). When is clinical psychology like astrology? Arizona State Law Journal, 33, 75-85.
4. Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called "science"? An assessment of the nature and status of science and its methods. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.
5. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
6. Dixon, L., & Gill, B. (2002). Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(3), 251-308.
7. Dobbin, S. A., & Gatowski, S. I. (1998). The social production of rape trauma syndrome as science and as evidence. In M. Freeman & H. Reece (Eds.), Science in court (pp. 125-145). Aldershot, England: Ashgate/Dartmouth.
8. Dobbin, S. A., & Gatowski, S. I. (1999). A judge's deskbook on the basic philosophies and methods of science. State Justice Institute. Available at http://www.unr.edu/bench
9. Dobbin, S. A., Gatowski, S. I., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., Dahir, V., & Richardson, J. T. (2001). Surveying difficult populations: Lessons learned from a national survey of state trial judges. The Justice System Journal, 22(3), 287-307.
10. Dobbin, S. A., Gatowski, S. I., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2002). Applying Daubert: How well do judges understand science and scientific method? Judicature, 85(5), 244-247.
11. Faigman, D. L. (1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 960-979.
12. Faigman, D. L. (2000). The law's scientific revolution: Reflections and ruminations on the law's use of experts in year seven of the revolution. Washington and Lee Law Review, 57, 661-684.
13. Faigman, D. L. (2001). Embracing the darkness: Logerquist v. McVey and the doctrine of ignorance of science as an excuse. Arizona State Law Journal, 33, 87-101.
14. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. L., & Sanders, J. (Eds.). (2002). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 2). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
15. Faigman, D. L., & Wright, A. J. (1997). The battered woman syndrome in an age of science. Arizona Law Review, 39, 67-115.
16. Farrell, M. G. (1994). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemology and legal process. Cardozo Law Review, 15, 2183.
17. Faust, D., & Ziskin, J. (1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science, 241, 31-35.
18. Federal Judicial Center (2000). Reference manual on scientific evidence. Washington, DC: Author.
19. Federal rules of evidence for United States courts (1999). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
20. Feinstein, A. (1967). Clinical judgment. Baltimore, MD: Wilkins & Wilkins.
21. Feyerabend, P. (1978). Against method. London: Verso.
22. Feyerabend, P. (1981). The problems of empiricism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
23. Frances, A., First, M. B., & Pincus, H. A. (1995). DSM-IV guidebook. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
24. Freckelton, I. (1992). Evidence: Battered woman syndrome. Alternative Law Journal, 17, 39-41.
25. Freckelton, I. (1994). When plight makes right: The forensic abuse syndrome. Criminal Law Journal, 18, 29-49.
26. Frye v. United States, 54 D.C. App. 46, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
27. Garcia-Rill, E., & Beecher-Monas, E. (2001). Gatekeeping stress: The science and admissibility of PTSD. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 24, 9-40.
28. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Johnson, M. T., Cecil, J. S., Dahir, V., Merlino, M. L., et al. (2000, March). The experience of state trial court judges with respect to expert testimony: Problems encountered and solutions employed. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Association (Div. 41, American Psychological Association), New Orleans, LA.
29. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., & Ginsburg, G. P. (1997). The globalization of behavioral science evidence about battered women: A theory of production and diffusion. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15(3), 285-305.
30. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433-458.
31. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Ct. 512 (1997).
32. Giannelli, P. C. (2001). Scientific evidence in civil and criminal cases. Arizona State Law Journal, 33, 103-119.
33. Ginsburg, G. P., & Richardson, J. T. (1998). "Brainwashing" evidence in light of Daubert. In H. Reece (Ed.), Law and science (pp. 265-288). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
34. Groscup, J. L., Penrod, S. D., Studebaker, C. A., Huss, M. T., & O'Neil, K. M. (2002). The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(4), 339-372.
35. Groscup, J. L., Studebaker, C. A., Huss, M. T., O'Neil, K. M., & Penrod, S. D. (2000, March). A "scientific" analysis of the admissibility of expert testimony: Investigating the effects of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society (Div. 41, American Psychological Association), New Orleans, LA.
36. Grove, W. M., & Barden, R. C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 224-242.
37. Imwinkelried, E. J. (2001). Logerquist v. McVey: The majority's flawed procedural assumptions. Arizona State Law Journal, 33, 121-137.
38. Kaye, D. H. (2001). Choice and boundary problems in Logerquist, Hummert, and Kumho Tire. Arizona State Law Journal, 33, 41-74.
39. Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574-586.
40. Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2002). Attorneys' evaluations of psychological science: Does evidence quality matter? Manuscript submitted for publication.
41. Kovera, M. B., Russano, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2002). Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision makers' abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 180-200.
42. Krafka, C., Dunn, M. A., Johnson, M. T., Cecil, J. S., & Miletich, D. (2002). Judge and attorney experiences, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 309-332.
43. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44. Kumho Tire Co. v. Patrick Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999).
45. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
46. Loftus, E., & Rosenwald, L. (1997). Repressed memories: Scientific status. In D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. 1, pp. 13-20). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
47. Logerquist v. McVey, 1 P.3d 113 (Ariz. 2000).
48. McCormick, M. (1982). Scientific evidence: Defining a new approach to admissibility. Iowa Law Review, 67(5), 879-916.
49. Merlino, M. L., Dillehay, R. D., Dahir, V., & Maxwell, D. (2001). Science education programs for the federal and state judiciary at year 2001. Reno, NV: Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies, University of Nevada, Reno. Available at www.unr.edu/justicestudies/JudicialSciencePrograms.pdf
50. Merlino, M. L., Dillehay, R. D., Dahir, V., & Maxwell, D. (2003). Science education for judges: What, where, and by whom? Judicature, 86(4), 210-213.
51. Odgers, S., & Richardson, J. T. (1995). Keeping bad science out of the courtroom: Changes in Australian and American expert evidence law. University of New South Wales Law Review, 18, 108-129.
52. People v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24, 549 P.2d 1240 (1976).
53. Popper, K. S. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.
54. Richardson, J. T. (1993). Religiosity as deviance: Negative religious bias and its misuse in the DSM. Deviant Behavior, 14, 1-21.
55. Richardson, J. T. (1994). Dramatic changes in American expert evidence law: From Frye to Daubert, with special attention to implications for social and behavioural science evidence. The Judicial Review, 2, 13-36.
56. Richardson, J. T., Dobbin, S. A., Gatowski, S. I., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., Dahir, V., & Colton, C. (1998, March). A case law survey of social and behavioral science evidence after Daubert. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Association (Div. 41, American Psychological Association), Redondo Beach, CA.
57. Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Gatowski, S. I., & Dobbin, S. A. (1995). The problems of applying Daubert to psychological syndrome evidence. Judicature, 79, 10-16.
58. Risinger, D. M. (2000). Navigating expert reliability: Are criminal standards of certainty being left on the dock? Albany Law Review, 64, 99-152.
59. Sanders, J. (1994). Scientific validity, admissibility, and mass torts after Daubert. Minnesota Law Review, 78, 1387.
60. Sanders, J., Diamond, S. S., & Vidmar, N. (2002). Legal perceptions of science and expert knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 139-153.
61. Schuller, R., & Vidmar, N. (1992). Battered women evidence in the courtroom: A review of the literature. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 273-291.
62. Schwartz, A. (1997). A "dogma of empiricism" revisited: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the need to resurrect the philosophical insight of Frye v. United States. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 10, 149.
63. Scott, W. J. (1990). PTSD in DSM-III: A case in the politics of diagnosis and disease. Social Problems, 37, 294-310.
64. Shapiro, E. (1977). Destructive cultism. American Family Physician, 15, 80-86.
65. Shuman, D. W., & Sales, B. D. (1999). The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5, 3-15.
66. Slobogin, C. (1999). The admissibility of behavioral science information in criminal trials: From primitivism to Daubert to voice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 100-119.
67. Smith, S. (1989). Mental health expert witnesses: Of science and crystal balls. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7(2), 145-180.
68. Underwager, R., & Wakefield, H. (1993). A paradigm shift for expert witnesses. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 5, 156-167.
69. United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985).
70. Yuille, J. (1989). Expert evidence by psychologists: Sometimes problematic and often premature. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7(2), 181-196.